¶1 I think the proceeding in the Superior Court was irregular, because an alteration was suffered to be made in a record, at the instance of one who was not a party to it, and whose right might be affected by it. Besides, the alteration, at this distance of time, may injure the rights of third persons, held under thev record, as it originally stood. This seems to he the object now in view for as the negroes were not levied upon, as appears by the Sheriff’s return, under the execution which issued in 1810, but were sold under that which issued in 1811, after the death of David Cowan, *306 it is intended by the proposed alteration, to validate that sale, and of course, to affect the title of James Cowan,. to the same property, acquired in 1821, under Ann Cow-an. Be this as it may, I think the Court erred, in permitting the alteration to be made. This case, however, is similar to that of Carter v. Graves, (ante 74) and the appeal cannot be considered as taken from a regular proceeding in the Court below j it must therefore, be dismissed, but the Appellant is not bound to pay costs to the Appellee.
¶2 Pee Curiam. — Appeal dismissed, each party to pay his own costs.